Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

[charitynjw]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Yep.....the parking site location has to be correctly identified.

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Thankyou...I'll add that in aswell ....I'll be in touch again if they send anything and/or before I submit my defence . Thanks again Pipsy

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Hi is this ok for my defence, i have mentioned the dates and the wrong address for the car park at the of this statement,, can you please check and advise ... I also sent the CPR31 in with proof of posting


County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXXX

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v XXX

Defence Statement

I am XX, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX at the time of the alleged offence. I currently reside at XXX.


I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

The Claim Form issued on the 02/10/2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited”.
The PoC letter was dated 11^th October 2017 but the envelope it was delivered in was dated 31^st October 2017 therefore not arrived within the 14 day deadline
There is NO carpark on Stoke Road, Shelton the one I think they are referring to is on Elgin Rd, Shelton, so how could there be a claim for outstanding debts

This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
© The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.


Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
© It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
a. It is believed the Claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. The Defendant has no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name. Any such claim should be in the name of the landowner.
b. The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that the Claimant is entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has issued proceedings inappropriately, prematurely and without complying with the practice directions on pre-action conduct.

5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
© there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 (PoFA 2012):
a. The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The Defendant is the registered keeper but was not the Driver. In order for the Claimant to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, they must do so within the strict requirements of PoFA 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: “If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.”
b. The Claimant did not issue a “Notice to Driver” at the time of the alleged offence; therefore, the Claimant is put to strict proof that a “Notice to Keeper” was issued within the required timeframe of 14 days after the alleged offence in accordance with PoFA 2012 para. 9(5).
c. In failing to comply with the PoFA 2012, the Claimant cannot hold the Keeper liable for any of the claim.

Grace periods
The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.
The CoP states:

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go...
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 3rd October 2017.

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
Statement of Truth
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Signed ________________________________
Dated ________________________

[charitynjw]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Hi is this ok for my defence, i have mentioned the dates and the wrong address for the car park at the of this statement,, can you please check and advise ... I also sent the CPR31 in with proof of posting


County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXXX

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v XXX

Defence Statement

I am XX, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX at the time of the alleged offence. I currently reside at XXX.


I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

The Claim Form issued on the 02/10/2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited”.
The PoC letter was dated 11^th October 2017 but the envelope it was delivered in was dated 31^st October 2017 therefore not arrived within the 14 day deadline.
The Defendant believes that the Claimant has filed a Certificate of Service which misleads the court as to the date on which the separate Particulars of Claim were in fact served.

There is NO carpark on Stoke Road, Shelton the one I think they are referring to is on Elgin Rd, Shelton, so how could there be a claim for outstanding debts

This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
© The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence, and that the Claimant should bear any costs pertaining to the amendment.

This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.


Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
© It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

The Claimant has no standing to bring a case - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
a. It is believed the Claimant does not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. The Defendant has no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name. Any such claim should be in the name of the landowner.
b. The Defendant asks the Claimant to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that the Claimant is entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has issued proceedings inappropriately, prematurely and without complying with the practice directions on pre-action conduct.

5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
© there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 (PoFA 2012):
a. The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The Defendant is the registered keeper but was not the Driver. In order for the Claimant to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, they must do so within the strict requirements of PoFA 2012. This too was confirmed by Mr Greenslade, POPLA Lead Adjudicator in page 8 of the 2015 POPLA Report: “If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.”
b. The Claimant did not issue a “Notice to Driver” at the time of the alleged offence; therefore, the Claimant is put to strict proof that a “Notice to Keeper” was issued within the required timeframe of 14 days after the alleged offence in accordance with PoFA 2012 para. 9(5).
c. In failing to comply with the PoFA 2012, the Claimant cannot hold the Keeper liable for any of the claim.

Grace periods
The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.
The CoP states:

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go...
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 3rd October 2017.

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed ________________________________
Dated ________________________

Couple of minor suggestions; good to go!

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Brilliant thankyou pipsy

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

sent my Defence off from my email... do i put anything for m Defence on the MCOL website

[charitynjw]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Have you had an autoreply?

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Yes it's just cone through...what happens next

[charitynjw]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

No need to send anything else, then.

Your defence will now be filed at court, & a copy sent to the Claimant.

They can either respond to it (sometimes the court directs that they do so) or they might indicate that they wish to proceed with their claim.
But they may choose to do nothing & just walk away from it.
If this happens, after about a month or so the claim is 'stayed' (goes into court 'limbo'.) Neither party is informed of this, so keep an eye on things.
For now, the ball is in their court. (No pun intended!)

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

thanks again I will keep you informed as to what happens next,, many thanks again Pips

[OliverJames]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

thanks again I will keep you informed as to what happens next,, many thanks again Pips

Hi Pipsy,

Have you sent a complaint to the court yet? If not, please read this post - http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...725#post762725

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Hi Yes ive done a copy and its ready to be looked at please ,, dates days etc as Ive had a mental block,,,

also how would i know Amanda


PLEASE ACCEPT THIS LETTER ONLY AS A LETTER OF COMPLAINT. IT DOES NOT FORM PART OF MY DEFENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SUCH.

Dear Amanda,
Could I please have a confirmation copy of Receipt please for my records
Regarding Claim Form xxxxx, I am writing to the court to complain that Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL), the Claimant in the above case, has deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim which were served separate to the claim form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4 (1)(b).
The Claim form was issued on 10th October 2017, stating that the detailed Particulars of Claim would be provided to me within 14 days after service of the claim form. The Claim Form was served 11th October 2017(7 days later, as set out in paragraph 5.7 of Practice Direction 7E which relates solely to MCOL claims). This means that the Particulars of Claim should have been served on or by 24^thOctober 2017. This would mean that they should have been posted by Friday 20 October. The time limits for service are clearly set out in Rules 6.3(b) and 6.20(b), and the requirement to serve separate Particulars within 14 days is contained in Rule 7.4(1)(b).
The further Particulars of Claim and covering letter were delivered by Royal Mail on Tuesday 31^stOctober, as the post mark shows , but in the envelope was a letter dated, 11th October 2017. There is a witness statement to corroborate these dates on which the further Particulars arrived.
The Claimant has made a poor attempt to conceal the actual date on which it served the further Particulars by backdating them by days, together with the covering letter. I would direct you to the fact that the claimant has also failed to include a signed N215 Certificate of Service which would be supported by a Statement of Truth, in a clear attempt to avoid the consequences, via CPR 32.14, of filing false evidence.
I cannot fathom any reason for the Claimant having backdated its further Particulars of Claim, other than to try to gain an advantage by making it appear that I have filed my defence late, or by confusing me into having to rush to file my defence prematurely. This is a serious matter and I ask that this is formally noted on the claimants file.
My understanding of the rules is that the Claimant may not file the Particulars late, and the sanctions in Rule 3.8 apply unless it applies for relief under Rule 3.9 (which it has not done). Consequently, the court should not allow the further Particulars of Claim unless and until the Claimant makes that application, or the court gives directions. Whilst the Particulars were received only one day out of time, under Rule 3.8 it is not in my gift to consent to accepting late service.
Setting aside the issue over Rule 3.8/9, I calculate that my Defence was due to be filed on 8th November (14 days from service of the Particulars on 24th October, as per Rule 15.4(1)(a)), and I have filed it.
This is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules and these sorts of blatant breaches should not be allowed because they prejudice Litigants in Person who are not versed in court procedures and the court rules. It is with some difficulty that I have understood the various obligations and time limits set out in the Civil Procedure Rules, as a Litigant in Person, whereas the commercial Claimant has no such excuse.
I am writing to you because I understand that the issue with CEL backdating their Particulars of Claim, and failing to file the Certificate of Service, has become extremely common. It appears that they have issued batch claims on or around 11th October with which they cannot cope. Their template Particulars of Claim, identical in each case, are an abuse of process, and all of them appear to be dated 11 October when they are in fact being posted much later (and in many cases out of time). I wonder what the court is going to do about CEL's abuse of the system? All court users, both professional and lay, are expected to abide by the Civil Procedure this is why they exist, to put all parties on an equal footing. CEL are ignoring the rules which is prejudicing what appears to be a large number of lay defendants
Yours Faithfully

[charitynjw]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

[MENTION=61850]OliverJames[/MENTION] ......for information.

[OliverJames]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Hi Yes ive done a copy and its ready to be looked at please ,, dates days etc as Ive had a mental block,,,

also how would i know Amanda


PLEASE ACCEPT THIS LETTER ONLY AS A LETTER OF COMPLAINT. IT DOES NOT FORM PART OF MY DEFENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SUCH.

Dear Amanda,
Could I please have a confirmation copy of Receipt please for my records
Regarding Claim Form xxxxx, I am writing to the court to complain that Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL), the Claimant in the above case, has deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim which were served separate to the claim form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4 (1)(b).
The Claim form was issued on 10th October 2017, stating that the detailed Particulars of Claim would be provided to me within 14 days after service of the claim form. The Claim Form was served 11th October 2017(7 days later, as set out in paragraph 5.7 of Practice Direction 7E which relates solely to MCOL claims). This means that the Particulars of Claim should have been served on or by 24^thOctober 2017. This would mean that they should have been posted by Friday 20 October. The time limits for service are clearly set out in Rules 6.3(b) and 6.20(b), and the requirement to serve separate Particulars within 14 days is contained in Rule 7.4(1)(b).
The further Particulars of Claim and covering letter were delivered by Royal Mail on Tuesday 31^stOctober, as the post mark shows , but in the envelope was a letter dated, 11th October 2017. There is a witness statement to corroborate these dates on which the further Particulars arrived.
The Claimant has made a poor attempt to conceal the actual date on which it served the further Particulars by backdating them by days, together with the covering letter. I would direct you to the fact that the claimant has also failed to include a signed N215 Certificate of Service which would be supported by a Statement of Truth, in a clear attempt to avoid the consequences, via CPR 32.14, of filing false evidence.
I cannot fathom any reason for the Claimant having backdated its further Particulars of Claim, other than to try to gain an advantage by making it appear that I have filed my defence late, or by confusing me into having to rush to file my defence prematurely. This is a serious matter and I ask that this is formally noted on the claimants file.
My understanding of the rules is that the Claimant may not file the Particulars late, and the sanctions in Rule 3.8 apply unless it applies for relief under Rule 3.9 (which it has not done). Consequently, the court should not allow the further Particulars of Claim unless and until the Claimant makes that application, or the court gives directions. Whilst the Particulars were received only one day out of time, under Rule 3.8 it is not in my gift to consent to accepting late service.
Setting aside the issue over Rule 3.8/9, I calculate that my Defence was due to be filed on 8th November (14 days from service of the Particulars on 24th October, as per Rule 15.4(1)(a)), and I have filed it.
This is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules and these sorts of blatant breaches should not be allowed because they prejudice Litigants in Person who are not versed in court procedures and the court rules. It is with some difficulty that I have understood the various obligations and time limits set out in the Civil Procedure Rules, as a Litigant in Person, whereas the commercial Claimant has no such excuse.
I am writing to you because I understand that the issue with CEL backdating their Particulars of Claim, and failing to file the Certificate of Service, has become extremely common. It appears that they have issued batch claims on or around 11th October with which they cannot cope. Their template Particulars of Claim, identical in each case, are an abuse of process, and all of them appear to be dated 11 October when they are in fact being posted much later (and in many cases out of time). I wonder what the court is going to do about CEL's abuse of the system? All court users, both professional and lay, are expected to abide by the Civil Procedure this is why they exist, to put all parties on an equal footing. CEL are ignoring the rules which is prejudicing what appears to be a large number of lay defendants
Yours Faithfully

I would remove the top line asking for a response and keep that to your email.

Email should read something like:

Dear Amanda,

I have been advised to send my formal complaint regarding CEL for your attention to enable you to forward on to your Customer Insight Team.

Please can you respond to confirm you have received this email.

Kind regards

The email subject should be something like:

Formal co.plaint regarding Civil Enforcement Limited backdating official documents ( [MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] may have a view on this...)

[Pipsy]

Re: Help ...Civil Enforcement Ltd . County Court Business Centre

Ok thanks I'll wait for charitynjw response befire I email thanks again Pipsy : )